The Phonology-Morphology Interface in Judeo-Spanish Diminutive Formation: A Lexical Ordering and Subcategorization Approach

Abstract

In this article we examine diminutive formation in Judeo-Spanish, which has not been treated before in the generative literature. The distribution of diminutive suffixes is shown to be predictable based on an interaction of morphological and phonological properties, which is a recognized hallmark of diminutive formation in Spanish more generally. Judeo-Spanish also presents some interesting twists not commonly found in other varieties of Spanish. A formal analysis is developed in Optimality Theory that builds upon recent work on allomorph selection involving lexical ordering and subcategorization. A comparison with previous analyses of other Spanish varieties shows that our approach can account for the behavior of nominal class markers in diminutivization, as well as the alternation of diminutive allomorphs, while avoiding the proliferation of language-and morpheme-specific constraints. Furthermore, our account sheds new light on the moraic status of glides in rising and falling diphthongs and of the trill in word-medial intervocalic position.

Sonority distance and similarity avoidance effects in Moroccan Judeo-Spanish

“…Second, Bradley and Smith (2011) propose an OT account of diminutive formation in eastern Judeo-Spanish varieties (Bunis 2003). One alternation involved in diminutivization is that nominals containing a stem-final dorsal consonant select the suffix -ito/a instead of the default suffix -iko/a that is otherwise preferred in disyllabic (or longer) words ending in -o/a, e.g.…”

An Experimental Investigation of Variation in Spanish Diminutives.

“…-cito/a and -(c)ecito/a). The distribution of these allomorphs has been the subject of several theoretical analyses (Ambadiang 1996(Ambadiang , 1997Bermúdez-Otero 2007, 2013Bradley & Smith 2011;Castillo & Ortiz 2013;Castro 1998;Colina 2003;Crowhurst 1992;Eddington 2002;Elordieta & Carreiras 1996;Horcajada 1988;Miranda 1999;Norrmann-Vigil 2012;Prieto 1992;Reynoso 2005;Rojas 1977;Stephenson 2004). These studies describe diminutivization within different frameworks, the details of which are not relevant to focus of the present study, and a review of which would occupy a lengthy paper on its own.…”

“…These studies describe diminutivization within different frameworks, the details of which are not relevant to focus of the present study, and a review of which would occupy a lengthy paper on its own. A number of other studies focus on diminutives in one particular variety (Bradley & Smith 2011;Crowhurst 1992;Fontanella 1962;Gaardner 1966;Jaeggli 1980). However, in spite of all the attention diminutivization has received, cross-dialectal variation in the formation of diminutives has been the topic of only a few studies.…”

Joselito and Calentito: diminutive enigmas

“…Much of the discussion has focused on the distribution of the allomorphs of -ito/a, and how they are distributed in different varieties of Spanish (e.g. Bradley and Smith 2011, Callebaut 2011, Castillo Valenzuela and Ortiz Ciscomani 2013, Fontanella 1962, Gaardner 1966, Horcajada 1988, Jaeggli 1980, Miranda 1999, Norrmann-Vigil 2012, Rojas 1977. Other research deals with how diminutive formation can be described in different theoretical frameworks (i.e.…”

“…Other research deals with how diminutive formation can be described in different theoretical frameworks (i.e. Ambadiang 1996, 1997, Bermúdez-Otero 2007, Bradley and Smith 2011, Castro 1998, Colina 2003, Crowhurst 1992, Eddington 2002, Elordieta and Carreiras 1996, Miranda 1999, Norrmann-Vigil 2012, Smith 2011, Stephenson 2004. Any attempt to categorize or systematize linguistic data ultimately encounters unusual instances that fail to fit into the general pattern.…”